(31 Vt. 529), and a board of road viewers (17 Ohio 101), have authority to make reasonable adjournments from time to time where the statute makes no provision in regard thereto.

The history of the meetings of the board of equalization indicates that it has been understood to possess this inherent power of adjournment. An examination of the records of the meetings of that board from 1851 to the present time shows that prior to 1886 the board met regularly upon the day fixed in the statute and made no adjournments during the periods of its sittings, except from day to day. In 1886, however, the board met as required, remained in session for a number of days and until the reports of the several counties were in, and then adjourned until the early part of September, when they met pursuant to adjournment and concluded their business. In 1891 the board followed the practice inaugurated in 1886, and after a few days of session adjourned until a day fixed in the early part of September; during the period of adjournment, however, the board constituted itself an investigating committee. In 1896 the board met as required by statute, and after receiving the reports from the several counties, and on the 21st day of August, adjourned until September 14th, at which time it met pursuant to adjournment and concluded its business. Other minor adjournments are also shown by the records, where the board adjourned for a number of days for the purpose of enabling the stenographer to write up his notes.

If there were any question of the authority of this board to adjourn, the settled practice existing unbrokenly from 1886 would have great influence in aiding in the determination of whether that right existed. am inclined to think, however, that the right so clearly exists that it is unnecessary to go into questions of practical construction to settle it. Respectfully,

HORACE M. OREN,

Attorney General.

FISH NETS.-Presumed that in fixing the standard, and establishing the maximum sizes of mesh that may be lawfully used, the Legisla ture considered that measurement should be made as the nets come from the manufacturer.

Lansing, August 10, 1901.

Hon. Grant M. Morse, State Game and Fish Warden, Portland, Michigan. Dear Sir-In a letter from you dated July 15th, ult., you ask the opinion of the Attorney General as to the construction to be given to the various provisions in Act 151, P. A. 1897 as amended, establishing the maximum sizes of mesh that may be used by fishermen in this State in the various species of nets enumerated in the act.

You state in your letter that it is a generally known and well recognized fact that fish nets shrink in use, and that a net, the meshes of which when it comes from the manufactory will measure say by way of illustration, five inches when extended, will when tarred, used, dried and subjected to the ordinary usages of fishing, shrink so that its mesh

measurement may fall short of that of five inches by a quarter or half inch perhaps, or more, dependent upon the size of the thread and finish of the twine and the length of time it may have been used. It seems to be established that the shrinkage is not uniform and its amount depends upon various conditions, chief of which I have enumerated.

You ask whether the maximum size established by the Legislature refers to the measurement of the nets as manufactured and before use, or measurement while in use.

It is to be readily seen that the time the law fixes for measurement is of vital consequence, both to your department and the commercial fishermen. If the maximum extension relates to nets as they come from the manufactory and before use; it means that shrinkage by use will not make the nets contraband; if it relates to the nets in use, then fishermen would have to buy a larger sized mesh than the size prescribed by law so that, the natural shrinkage inevitable from use would not bring them below the permissible size.

This question must be decided solely by the legislative intent, and after a careful examination of the various acts of the Legislature that have been passed in this State upon the size of mesh permissible, it seems to me that the intent is so clear that the answer to your question can admit of no doubt.

Previous legislation would indicate that the various Legislatures have well known the fact regarding the shrinkage of fish nets in use, and they have refused to set a standard on any other basis than the size of the mesh as manufactured and before use.

It is true perhaps that this does not so clearly appear in the first act in this State regulating the size of meshes (Act No. 350, P. A. 1865), as in the other subsequent acts, but in Act No. 61, P. A. 1885, Amending Section 1 of Act No. 350, P. A. 1865, providing the maximum mesh for pound nets occurs the following:

"The meshes of the parts of pound or trap nets, commonly called the lead, the funnel, and the heart, shall not be less than five inches in extension as manufactured; and the meshes of the parts of said nets, commonly called the pot crib, or pocket (being that part in which the fish are finally captured), shall not be less than three and one-half inches in extension as manufactured."

Again in the same section as indicating the practical construction that had been placed upon the law of 1865 by fishermen who had purchased nets under that law, appears the following:

"Provided, That during the years 1885 and 1886, all pound and trap nets purchased and owned prior to July 1, 1885, may be used if the meshes of the crib or pocket, as above described, are not less than three and one-half inches in extension as manufactured."

In Act 139, P. A. 1889 which superseded the law of 1865 and its amend ments, the legislative intent is made more evident. After enumerating the various maximum size of mesh without stating whether as manufactured or as used, in section two occurs, the language:

"The measurement of mesh referred to in this act shall be construed to refer to the size as manufactured."

Language could hardly be more unmistakable in evidencing its intent than that just quoted.

In 1897 the Legislative files will show that House Bill No. 658 introduced by Representative George B. Davis, with substitute recommended

by Committee on Fisheries and Game, was recommended by the committee, and first passed the House with provisions as follows:

"The mesh of every pound or trap net used in the waters of this State shall be at least four inches extension measure as used." In other instances prescribing the measure, the words "as used" are to be found.

In the act as passed by both houses these words "as used" had been stricken out and the words "manufactured" inserted.

This bit of Legislative History shows that the Legislature acted advisedly and with the full knowledge of the points involved.

It may have been urged that with the variation in shrinkage, nets that one year would be lawful would the next year be unlawful, and it is hardly to be presumed that the Legislature intended that fishermen should have anything else than the use of their property for the full period of its usefulness, at least not without expressing such in no uncertain terms. It might have been urged that the one certain and uniform measurement was that which could be made before use, and as the nets came from the manufactories. Fishermen could then protect themselves by purchasing a lawful size, and not have their property put in jeopardy by having a standard applied when by shrinkage from use the nets might or might not fall below the standard.

It is to be presumed that in fixing the standard, and in providing that the measure for determining whether the requirements of the law had been met, should be made as the nets come from the manufactories, the legislature fairly considered the needs of fish protection and the interest of the commercial fishermen of the State.

In my judgment to give this act any other construction than I have outlined would be to do violence to the clear and manifest intent of the Legislature.

Very respectfully,

HORACE M. OREN,

Attorney General.

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETINS.-Should be printed and bound under the State contract, the expense therefor to be paid from the fund provided for the support of the Agricultural College.

Lansing, August 16, 1901.

Hon. A. C. Bird, Secretary State Board of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan. Dear Sir-Your letter of August 7th received and considered. You state that by recent act of the Legislature, the Agricultural College is required to pay for the printing of the Experiment Station Bulletins from the fund of $100,000 provided for in said act for the support of the institution, and you ask whether under this condition of affairs those bulletins must be printed and bound under the State contract, or can the State Board of Agriculture have the work done by the lowest satisfactory bidder. Replying thereto will say that Section 15 of Act No. 44 of the Public Acts of 1899, being "An act to provide for the publication and distribution of laws and documents, reports of the several officers, boards

of officers and public institutions of this State, now or hereafter to be published, etc.," provides as follows:

"The State Board of Agriculture shall prepare and print bulletins of the experiment station as at present provided by law, which expense shall be audited by the Board of State Auditors, but in no year shall the expense for printing and binding of any bulletins by the State Board of Agriculture exceed the sum of $1,000, etc."

Later in the session of the Legislature of 1899 a concurrent resolution was passed increasing the allowance for such printing and binding to the sum of $4,000.

By Act No. 232 of the Public Acts of 1901, being "An act to extend aid to the Agricultural College," it was provided that the expense of printing and binding the bulletins of the experiment stations should be paid from the fund created by said act for the support of the Agricultural College, instead of from the general fund of the State, as provided in previous laws.

Section 31 of Act No. 44 of 1899, above referred to, provides in part as follows:

"And it shall be the duty of the State printer or binder to deliver at the office of the Secretary of State, or at such other place or places as he may direct, all the books or pamphlets to be printed and bound, as mentioned in this act."

In my opinion this section, considered in connection with that provision of Section 22 of Article 4 of the constitution of this State, requiring that all printing and binding ordered by the Legislature, shall be let by contract to the lowest bidder or bidders, contemplates that all printing and binding for which provision is made in said act, should be done by the State printers or binders under their contract with the State.

It therefore follows that the Experiment Station Bulletins, should be printed and bound under the State contract, the expense thereof to be paid from the fund provided for the support of the Agricultural College. Yours respectfully,

HORACE M. OREN,
Attorney General.

INHERITANCE TAX LAW.-The tax not being paid within six months from the accruing thereof, the statute does not authorize a discount of five per cent from the amount of such tax.

Lansing, August 16, 1901.

H. H. Barlow, Attorney-at-Law, Coldwater, Michigan.

Dear Sir-I am in receipt of your letter of August 9th, relative to the payment of the inheritance tax in the estate of Frances J. Fiske Parkhurst, deceased. You state that Mrs. Parkhurst died on January 5, 1900; that on June 19, 1901, the Probate Court made an order settling the estate and fixing the amount of the inheritance tax to be paid to the State; that from the amount of such tax, so determined, viz., $3,818.29, five per cent was deducted under Section 4 of the inheritance tax law,

which provides that if such tax is paid within six months from the accruing thereof, a discount of five per centum shall be allowed and deducted therefrom. You also state that the Auditor General has refused to countersign the receipts issued by the county treasurer unless the five per cent so deducted under the order of the court is included in the amount to be received by the State.

After a careful consideration of this matter, I am of the opinion that the Auditor General was correct in his contention. Section 3 of the inheritance tax law provides that all taxes imposed by said act shall be due and payable at the time of the transfer. Under the ruling in the case of Richards v. Pierce, 44 Mich. 444, it was held by the Supreme Court that the transfer of property by will takes place at the death of testator. While it is true that under our statute a will must be probated before it is sufficient to pass property, yet the above case holds that when so proved the will relates back to the date of testator's death, and the time of transfer is on that date. In the case of Foote v. Foote, 61 Mich. 181, it was held by the Supreme Court of this State, that if a man dies intestate, the equitable title to his property under the laws of this State, at once passes to his heirs.

The inheritance tax law of this State is a copy of the inheritance tax law of the State of New York. In the case of matter of Seaman, 147 New York Reports, 69; in passing upon the inheritance tax law of that state, the court held that the time of transfer in the case of decedents, refers to the time death occurs, and not to the date of the order of distribution made by the Probate Court.

This ruling is clearly in accord with the rule in this State as laid down in the cases above cited.

I would therefore say that in the estate referred to, the tax not being paid within six months from the accruing thereof, viz., January 5, 1900, the statute does not authorize a discount of five per cent.

Respectfully yours,

HORACE M. OREN,

Attorney General.

LABOR BUREAU.-BOARD OF STATE AUDITORS.-Printing and publishing laws, relative to Labor Bureau, Board of State Auditors, to audit bills for the expense of.

Board of State Auditors, Lansing, Michigan.

Lansing, August 28, 1901

Gentlemen-Under date of January 22, 1900, I gave an opinion to your honorable board to the effect that certain bills for printing and binding compilations of laws relative to the Labor Bureau could not be lawfully audited by you and paid out of the general fund of the State, by reason of certain provisions of Act No. 44, Public Acts of 1899.

The Legislature of 1901, in the passage of Act No. 113, approved May 13, 1901 and given immediate effect, has in my opinion, changed the law in this regard. Section 15 of said act provides in part as follows: